Preview — When Elephants Weep by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson

When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals

This national bestseller exploring the complex emotional lives of animals was hailed as "a masterpiece" by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas and as "marvelous" by Jane Goodall.

The popularity of When Elephants Weep has swept the nation, as author Jeffrey Masson appeared on Dateline NBC, Good Morning America, and was profiled in People for his ground-breaking and fascinating study.This national bestseller exploring the complex emotional lives of animals was hailed as "a masterpiece" by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas and as "marvelous" by Jane Goodall.

The popularity of When Elephants Weep has swept the nation, as author Jeffrey Masson appeared on Dateline NBC, Good Morning America, and was profiled in People for his ground-breaking and fascinating study. Not since Darwin's The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals has a book so thoroughly and effectively explored the full range of emotions that exist throughout the animal kingdom.

From dancing squirrels to bashful gorillas to spiteful killer whales, Masson and coauthor Susan McCarthy bring forth fascinating anecdotes and illuminating insights that offer powerful proof of the existence of animal emotion. Chapters on love, joy, anger, fear, shame, compassion, and loneliness are framed by a provocative re-evaluation of how we treat animals, from hunting and eating them to scientific experimentation. Forming a complete and compelling picture of the inner lives of animals, When Elephants Weep assures that we will never look at animals in the same way again....more

Community Reviews

so disappointing. i had such high hopes. but every page was like, "maybe animals have feelings. but we're not sure yet. i mean, cats seem to. but who knows? elephants look like they're crying sometimes. are they really? we may never find out."

While I agree with the principles in this book, that's all I agree with. There are several reasons.

First and most obvious to many who read it: he has a huge amount of anger towards scientists. I can appreciate this to a large extent, animals have been and are still used in experiments which are horrible. His anger has transcended the normal boundaries to become fanatical. The problem with this is twofold. On the one hand he often makes generalizations which are not always fair (his attacks on anWhile I agree with the principles in this book, that's all I agree with. There are several reasons.

First and most obvious to many who read it: he has a huge amount of anger towards scientists. I can appreciate this to a large extent, animals have been and are still used in experiments which are horrible. His anger has transcended the normal boundaries to become fanatical. The problem with this is twofold. On the one hand he often makes generalizations which are not always fair (his attacks on animal behaviorists are often off the mark), on the other hand it gets boring after a couple of chapters. He begins to sound like a parrot who knows how to say many things but insists on yelling "scientists are evil, scientists are evil" at all hours of the day.

Second, his arguments are mainly annecdotal. This is often necessary and the author does explain the difficulties in studying emotions otherwise. The problem is that such stories often have multiple interpretations. One example is a story he gives about a boy saved from a venemous snake by a mongoose. He gives this as proof of love- that the mongoose killed the snake because it loved the boy. That is certainly a possibility but is it the only one? After all mongooses kill snakes in the wild all the time. If he could offer proof that mongooses only do so in the presence of family that would be stronger but he doesn't. I don't know if such research exists for mongooses but there is compelling evidence in ground squirrels. Even then, saying it is from love is difficult. It could be (I think they feel love for their families) but it can't be proven. Culture can also play a role in how we read these events but Mr. Masson ignores all these uncomfortable questions.

Finally and most disturbingly, the author misrepresents at least two of his sources. I have read both the Bledsoe and schaller books which he refers to and he misrepresents their statements in the book to give more weight to his arguments. If he did it for them, what about his other sources?

The author attempted to deal with a opic previously inexplored in our culture and he should be commended for that. Unfortunately in most other ways this book fails. I previously recommended this book to friends with an interest in the topic (with the caveat to read it and still think for themselves) but now that Marc Bekoff has published "The Emotional Lives of Animals" I plan on reading that one and hope that I will be able to whole-heartedly recommend that one instead....more

[Readers note: the author is a professor of Sanskrit and a trained Freudian analyst who has a passion for animals and exploring our relationships to animals from a philosophical point of view. He is not a practicing biologist, animal behaviorist, or any other -ist within the zoological/anthropological realm. I believe his intent is to help make this area of science more compelling, interesting, and accessible to the lay public. Best to read it with that understanding in mind.]

I fell right into t[Readers note: the author is a professor of Sanskrit and a trained Freudian analyst who has a passion for animals and exploring our relationships to animals from a philosophical point of view. He is not a practicing biologist, animal behaviorist, or any other -ist within the zoological/anthropological realm. I believe his intent is to help make this area of science more compelling, interesting, and accessible to the lay public. Best to read it with that understanding in mind.]

I fell right into this book from page one of the prologue. My inner dialog was so loud and persistent I had to take notes on paper to help myself focus more clearly on what I was reading; it felt good to be so actively interactive with a book! About halfway through chapter one, though, I realized I definitely wasn't part of the target audience. Back when I worked at the public library I became hooked on non-fiction, and I've always loved the life sciences in particular, so I'm already very familiar with the topic. Despite feeling like I was being beaten over the head with his strident arguments, I still found myself cheering Masson for writing such a passionate book, and I was happy to overlook some of his more specious generalizations knowing the intent was to convince folk who hadn't really thought about this topic before that it's one worth embracing and exploring more deeply. The thing I couldn't get away from, however, was my need to shout: "...in Western scientific traditions!" after each of his assertions that there is "..almost no investigation...in the modern scientific literature," or "...the worst of ethological sins - anthropomorphism." At least he did mention Jane Goodall and Frans de Waal, and again, de Waal's research was not really the point of this book. It did make me hungry to read " The Ape and the Sushi Master" again, where de Waal does explore the limitations of Western science and how Eastern scientists have a much more holistic approach that includes recognizing the sentience and emotional expressions of other animals....more

- A mother giraffe fends off a lion for an hour to defend her child.- A male chimpanzee dies shortly after his mother.- Koko the gorilla cares for a “pet” kitten she names “All Ball.”- A male falcon displays uncharacteristic behavior, including sounds that sound like cries of anguish, when his mate is killed.- A gorilla who is given orange juice as a treat, gives it instead one day to a researcher who complains of a stomach ache. When she returns ten days later, the gorilla insists on the resear- A mother giraffe fends off a lion for an hour to defend her child.- A male chimpanzee dies shortly after his mother.- Koko the gorilla cares for a “pet” kitten she names “All Ball.”- A male falcon displays uncharacteristic behavior, including sounds that sound like cries of anguish, when his mate is killed.- A gorilla who is given orange juice as a treat, gives it instead one day to a researcher who complains of a stomach ache. When she returns ten days later, the gorilla insists on the researcher drinking her juice until reassured that the stomach ache is gone.- And of course, the thing that gives this book its title: elephants have been seen to cry on numerous occasions.

Is this definitive proof that animals show emotions? Not necessarily, but they are characteristic of the examples given in this book, which is more of a challenge to our attitudes toward animals, and our reluctance to explore the whole question of emotion in animals. The authors point out that seals have been seen to shed tears while watching their children being clubbed to death, but since seals frequently shed tears, this isn’t conclusive proof of emotion. However, this doesn’t mean that the seals don’t feel sad. I’m sure there are more compelling examples in the book than the ones I have listed.

I think that the reader should keep in mind that, despite the enormous amount of data we have about other animals, there is still much mystery to their behavior and cognitive functions. These things, particularly emotion, are so little well-understood in humans, that our knowledge is woefully lacking when it comes to non-human animals. However, this book reinforces that point while also pointing to documentation that challenges the preconceptions that tend to be voiced in academia, especially in the biological sciences.

After looking at some negative reviews, I feel I ought to add in my thoughts of why I think some of the negative criticism is unfair.

The most overwhelming criticism I am seeing is that the authors criticize scientists to the point of hostility and denigration. It is true that the tone does border on the antagonistic when it comes to certain dismissals of animal emotion, or in cruelty to animals justified by science. However, I heartily enjoy science books and am, usually a defender of scientific pursuit in general, and I was not bothered by this. To me, there is a much needed confrontation of the dismissive attitudes of many scientists regarding animal emotion. The issue of the ethics of animal experimentation for scientific research is, I think, one of the most pressing and complex ethical issues facing scientists today; and one’s beliefs regarding animal emotion will figure significantly into one’s attitude toward animal experimentation. I don’t think a watered down tone is appropriate here; the authors are challenging intractable and, it is hard to put this in a way that won’t be considered an ad hominem attack, insensitive behavior.

The second complaint I see is that the authors are dogmatic and unequivocally accept animals display emotions in situations that are ambiguous at best. While at times I did think that the authors were reading an emotional motive where there was none, I always stopped to reflect on the fact that 1) they almost always use tentative language—could, maybe, perhaps, etc., rather than giving statements such as “this is obviously an example of animal emotion, which the evil scientists have denied against all reason and compassion,” which is what many of the negative reviews seem to imply; 2) even in someone who is very sympathetic to this viewpoint such as myself, I find myself resisting the idea of emotion in animals, because truly acknowledging such would lead to a radical change in many societal attitudes and behaviors that we take for granted, even in those of us who think we are kind to animals. If we, as a society, were confident in the truth of the premise of this book, we would be beating down the doors of the slaughterhouses, animal testing labs, and circuses of the world.

There isn’t a large amount of literature on this subject, but some have recommended other books over this one that sound intriguing.

The value I see in this book is not solid, scientific proof of emotions in animals, but a much-needed challenge to our assumptions. In situations that may seem unclear, I think it’s perfectly justified to ask, “Did the animal feel emotion when doing that, or was it simply an unfeeling act of instinct?” The problem is, we are so inured to assuming the latter, that one may not even consider the possibility that both instinct and emotion are acting. One interesting example from the book: an elephant tries to rescue a baby rhino stuck in the mud, even when the mother rhino attacks the elephant, in defense of her baby. Rhinos have bad eyesight, so the mother did not realize the baby was stuck, even though it heard it and knew it was in trouble. Was the mother acting out of love in defending her child (even though it was misguided), or was this simply a biological imperative to protect one’s genes? Can’t both be true? And for the elephant, was its rescue attempt true altruism, trying to help a completely unrelated animal, even after being attacked by the mother? Or had the baby’s distress activated a “protect the child” instinct, even when not related (it seems that animals will often have protective and nurturing behavior towards children even of completely unrelated species)?

My only complaint is that the majority of the instances of possible animal emotions are in mammals. This is understandable given that other mammals are the most likely to behave like humans, and they do give some cases of birds, and even briefly touch on insects and arachnids, but I think that some more examples among reptiles, amphibians, and fish could have been given. But this is a small caveat, since data on those groups is probably much rarer.

The instances given, while often open to interpretation, do provide situations, of which at least some, cannot fail to startle the reader, and challenge some preconception about what animals (or at least that kind of animal) are capable. I would also think the authors make a good point in turning the charge of anthropomorphism on its head: is it necessarily anthropomorphic to ascribe emotions to non-human animals if these emotions, like physical characteristics, can be demonstrated to be shared with non-humans? Also, they do well in pointing out that allowing the possibility of emotions in animals does not only mean giving them emotions we want, saying that they are only loving and kind, or only cruel and aggressive; we should not also assume they have only primitive emotions, or can experience the same emotions human have, or in the same way. The authors make the case that clearly more investigation and open-mindedness is needed, and that emotion even among humans is not well understood, especially scientifically. After more reflection and investigation, we need to face our own attitudes and behavior towards animals and adjust them accordingly....more

Andrew SydlikAlso, the instance you described seems pretty typical. They seem to be very caring toward each other. The herd will slow down if an animal is injured,Also, the instance you described seems pretty typical. They seem to be very caring toward each other. The herd will slow down if an animal is injured, or lagging behind after a relative has been killed....more
Jul 08, 2010 08:57AM

NHi people - I just 'registered' so I could comment... I hate websites that require one to register or join to comment - like YT.Anyway, somewhere (I'mHi people - I just 'registered' so I could comment... I hate websites that require one to register or join to comment - like YT.Anyway, somewhere (I'm sorry I can't remember where) I saw a dog sitting on a corner of a bed, looking away from his owner; ears not back (not listening to owner at all). The owner was doing an observation/experiment. The dog was being scolded for something that another dog had done. The picture and 'caption' was really amazing.I have two cats - one gets very jealous when I pay attention to the other more or first.

A baby elephant died of a broken heart because some a$$hole 'culler' shot it's Mom right in front of him.He was seen from the helicopter camera, frantically racing around his now lifeless Mom, confused. A(Mom, get up!!!) kind of thing. No amount of consoling got it to feed, or even get up, when tenderly attended to. It died a few days later. I cried like a baby when I saw that film.I hope there's no limit on characters......more
Dec 06, 2013 04:58AM

Repetitive. No science. Reads something like this-scientists suck because I think my pets have feelings and they really do because I can just tell and how can anyone say they don't? Also, other people think their pets have feelings. So there. Flawless argument. Horribly misinterprets or over interprets behaviors and actions. Everything right up to the looks dogs give and of course, from a look you can read their mind because it's not possible they could be thinking anything other than the anthroRepetitive. No science. Reads something like this-scientists suck because I think my pets have feelings and they really do because I can just tell and how can anyone say they don't? Also, other people think their pets have feelings. So there. Flawless argument. Horribly misinterprets or over interprets behaviors and actions. Everything right up to the looks dogs give and of course, from a look you can read their mind because it's not possible they could be thinking anything other than the anthropomorphic (oh, that naughty word) thoughts you have assigned to them (He literally does say that his interpretation is the only logical one). Given that humans can't even read other humans' thoughts from a look most of the time, his cross-species mind-reading skills are truly impressive. Recommend "Animals in translation" or "A parrot's lament" if you want a good book on animal emotions and intelligence, backed by science (You know, studies done by those scientists who hate animals and are stupid and don't think that animals have emotions. Seriously, has he seen any animal research in the last 3-4 decades?) and written much better, while still being interesting and touching. Also, anything about Alex the grey parrot. He was awesome. ...more

I was hoping this would be more like "Animals in Translation: Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior," with lots of interesting facts backed up with evidence. Instead, it reads like an essay arguing that ethologists are all wrong because they don't ascribe animals' actions to emotional causes. Granted, I didn't read the whole book, but the part I did read repeated itself over and over. I felt like I was being beaten by a dead, unhappy horse.

About as scientific as Googling "amazing animal stories." Had some good anecdotal evidence, but in the end, the answer to the question "Do animals have emotions?" still remains "maybe." The reader must take into account while reading this that the author is not an animal psychologist, but a vegetarian with a PhD in Sanskrit. Seriously.

Masson explores "the sin of anthropomorphism" - attributing emotions (& behaviour in response to emotions) to animals, both in terms of his own observations and those of biologists and animal trainers & researchers, all the way back to Charles Darwin. He starts with a general discussion of the topic, then spends a chapter on one of about a dozen different emotional states; including fear, anger, love, joy and compassion.

He's definitely writing with an agenda; he's a vegetarian and very aMasson explores "the sin of anthropomorphism" - attributing emotions (& behaviour in response to emotions) to animals, both in terms of his own observations and those of biologists and animal trainers & researchers, all the way back to Charles Darwin. He starts with a general discussion of the topic, then spends a chapter on one of about a dozen different emotional states; including fear, anger, love, joy and compassion.

He's definitely writing with an agenda; he's a vegetarian and very against animal testing and experimentation. Masson presents the standard arguments of behaviorists and uses their terminology against them at times. While a large chunk of his stories and anecdotes deal with the great ape family (including those who have been taught sign language or other communication skills); he also presents examples of elephants, foxes, dolphins and geese as exhibiting emotions and related behavior. Domestic animals work in his favor as well, since nearly anyone who has lived with dogs or cats (or other pets) is familiar with their moods and feelings.

I found his writing engaging, with the myriad of experiences woven together to provide a cogent argument. He dedicates nearly 45 pages to his Notes and Bibliography, and includes an index as well.

Recommended to animal lovers with an interest in psychology & sociology....more

This could easily be a five star book, as I believe it can change the life ofmany people who do not give enough credit to animals. However in my case I was already in agreement with the fact that animals do have emotions and feel just as much as we do, so it was not a life changing book per say. However this book is very intelligent. It's well written, very scientific in its approach, and while at times can be a bit snarky, is justifiably so. This is not the feel good "let's read stories about aThis could easily be a five star book, as I believe it can change the life ofmany people who do not give enough credit to animals. However in my case I was already in agreement with the fact that animals do have emotions and feel just as much as we do, so it was not a life changing book per say. However this book is very intelligent. It's well written, very scientific in its approach, and while at times can be a bit snarky, is justifiably so. This is not the feel good "let's read stories about animals" kinda book though, while the stories are there, it is, again, scientific in its approach and it a good theory book. However it is written in a style that all can read, very approachable. I would definitely recommend this book to everyone....more

This is a re-read. I first read this book when it came out in 1995. I enjoyed it the second time as well. I don't agree with some of the reviewers of this book who say the author does not make his point. No, he does not scientifically prove that animals have emotions and that these emotions, rather than pure instinct, influence their behavior. I don't think he was trying to do that. I believe he was trying to get people to see animals as sentient beings who feel - and I think he succeeds at thatThis is a re-read. I first read this book when it came out in 1995. I enjoyed it the second time as well. I don't agree with some of the reviewers of this book who say the author does not make his point. No, he does not scientifically prove that animals have emotions and that these emotions, rather than pure instinct, influence their behavior. I don't think he was trying to do that. I believe he was trying to get people to see animals as sentient beings who feel - and I think he succeeds at that. He is saying that even though we cannot know what an animal thinks or feels, if an animal appears to be sad (happy, affectionate, angry, shy, ashamed, afraid, etc.)who are we to say those emotions can't exist in animals? ...more

This book was frustrating to read. It was anecdote after anecdote and even though I agree with the author that animals do have emotions, I found myself disagreeing with his arguments. He likes to present a story of an animal behaving in such a way as to convince us that it is having some sort of emotional experience, of which I have no doubt. The problem is that he is pulling emotions out of his butt and saying "It could be this...or this... or this..." This is why science has little to say abouThis book was frustrating to read. It was anecdote after anecdote and even though I agree with the author that animals do have emotions, I found myself disagreeing with his arguments. He likes to present a story of an animal behaving in such a way as to convince us that it is having some sort of emotional experience, of which I have no doubt. The problem is that he is pulling emotions out of his butt and saying "It could be this...or this... or this..." This is why science has little to say about animal emotion--not because scientists think animals have no emotion, but that they cannot test such things as sadness or jealousy or happiness in any definitive way. Science can only work with falsifiable claims and who can say whether or not a mother lion feels sadness or anguish at her cub's death? It simply cannot be tested, at least not until we fully understand the complete biological composition of emotion. I do think works such as this are valuable. Animal suffering is inexcusable and people do need to be aware of it. I think the author's efforts should be aimed at social awareness rather than disdain for objective science....more

This book has a fatal flaw, which I believe is the crux of its argument and usefulness: In the discussion of whether or not animals can be said to have feelings, Masson is forced to wrestle with the definition of emotion, its origin and symptoms and causes and ontology. Is emotion mutually exclusive to evolutionary function, as one would come to believe from the tone of scientific discourse? If a mother protects her cubs, can we assume she feels love for them? Why would we possibly assume otherwThis book has a fatal flaw, which I believe is the crux of its argument and usefulness: In the discussion of whether or not animals can be said to have feelings, Masson is forced to wrestle with the definition of emotion, its origin and symptoms and causes and ontology. Is emotion mutually exclusive to evolutionary function, as one would come to believe from the tone of scientific discourse? If a mother protects her cubs, can we assume she feels love for them? Why would we possibly assume otherwise? The very concept of anthropomorphism implies that humans and animals are fundamentally different, and thereby disallows any meaningful, genuine comparison by researchers for fear of appearing soft.

The book eventually becomes repetitive and even polemical in its statements on what it means if animals do, in fact, have emotions (hint: we might be compelled to be less cruel to them, you know, universally). Relatedly, it is defined by the logical fallacy that a collection of anecdotes can constitute data. That being said, the research is compelling and the story-telling from animal observers is interesting. While I might not recommend reading this book cover to cover, it's worth a few chapters and some skimming. ...more

Joan WetherellI think this reviewer put her finger on a fundamental problem of trying to determine whether animals feel emotion: how do we define emotion? Do they fI think this reviewer put her finger on a fundamental problem of trying to determine whether animals feel emotion: how do we define emotion? Do they feel human emotions? This is something I will have to think about some more. Thank,you to the reviewer....more
Oct 26, 2013 03:05PM

I am a lion hungry for a piece of meat, but I can't seem to get it across to Mr. Masson. I stood up on my hind legs and mewed and whined and begged, but no nice red meat. All of which is to say that I got to about page 55 and said to myself that this book was not worth the investment in time and energy.

The book is actually a polemic fueled by Mr. Masson's dislike about something or other in the scientific community and inflated by his speculations and rhetorical questions in the form of "If so,I am a lion hungry for a piece of meat, but I can't seem to get it across to Mr. Masson. I stood up on my hind legs and mewed and whined and begged, but no nice red meat. All of which is to say that I got to about page 55 and said to myself that this book was not worth the investment in time and energy.

The book is actually a polemic fueled by Mr. Masson's dislike about something or other in the scientific community and inflated by his speculations and rhetorical questions in the form of "If so, why should it not be that gibbons have a theory of the fourth dimension?" Mr. Masson does not follow up the questions with information. So, I'm led to conclude that there isn't any. In sum, he scolds the scientific community for not having information and then he turns the lack of information into a not small book without making a positive contribution of his own. ...more

I found this book to be fascinating, as well as somewhat disappointing. The author makes the argument that the fear of committing anthropomorphism has biased the scientific study of animals- with this I can agree. However, the author's own bias against scientists who avoid making observations of what appears to be emotions in animals is reflected in the writing. His own bias hinders a comprehensive look at the emotional lives of animals. Aside from his (understandingly) jaded viewpoint the bookI found this book to be fascinating, as well as somewhat disappointing. The author makes the argument that the fear of committing anthropomorphism has biased the scientific study of animals- with this I can agree. However, the author's own bias against scientists who avoid making observations of what appears to be emotions in animals is reflected in the writing. His own bias hinders a comprehensive look at the emotional lives of animals. Aside from his (understandingly) jaded viewpoint the book provides stories of animal emotions that are surprising and inspiring, as well as frustrating and depressing! ...more

I enjoyed this book largely because of the anecdotal stories about animal behavior. However, as the author himself points out early on, there isn't a great deal of science in the book to back up those anecdotes. Instead, the book discusses various theories of animal behavior, and the pitfalls scientists and animal observers strive to avoid, such as anthropomorphism. Then the book puts those things in context, and more or less poses a question: how much do we really know about what/whether animalI enjoyed this book largely because of the anecdotal stories about animal behavior. However, as the author himself points out early on, there isn't a great deal of science in the book to back up those anecdotes. Instead, the book discusses various theories of animal behavior, and the pitfalls scientists and animal observers strive to avoid, such as anthropomorphism. Then the book puts those things in context, and more or less poses a question: how much do we really know about what/whether animals love, or grieve, or feel joy, if we cannot know what they think? And how much of what we believe we know is our projection onto them? It's a question for the ages, limited by our present technology, but the book was thought-provoking. I would have enjoyed more case studies which delved deeper both into the scientific observation of animals, and into thoughtful speculation. If you love animals, though, this book will make you think about what they feel - if they feel - and that is never a bad thing. ...more

Humans pride themselves on not being animals, going so far as to describe any behavior we’re shamed of as ‘animal’. Beasts have rude instincts; we have exalted Emotions, gifts of the gods. We may begrudgingly grant animals fear, or perhaps even affection – but love? Joy? Aesthetic reverence? In When Elephants Weep, authors Masson and McCarthy explores the spectrum of animal emotions, from recording the patently obvious to flirting with anthropomorphism. In their view, animals across the kingdomHumans pride themselves on not being animals, going so far as to describe any behavior we’re shamed of as ‘animal’. Beasts have rude instincts; we have exalted Emotions, gifts of the gods. We may begrudgingly grant animals fear, or perhaps even affection – but love? Joy? Aesthetic reverence? In When Elephants Weep, authors Masson and McCarthy explores the spectrum of animal emotions, from recording the patently obvious to flirting with anthropomorphism. In their view, animals across the kingdom can share the same basis emotions, and offered as evidence are hundreds of anecdotal claims of animals expressing behavior interpreted as emotional. Most of the subjects are mammals, but birds pepper the text and even insects make a stray appearance. Although anecdotes are dismissed as evidence among purists of the scientific method, many of the primate examples are corroborated in Jane Goodall and Frans de Waal’s work, and considering their frequency and similarity – and the fact that these two scientists made observations on different populations of chimpanzees -- many of the examples are respectable enough. The author does reach sometimes, but the agenda here isn’t so much as to present an body of evidence convincing skeptics that animals have emotions as it is to create room for suspecting they do; in the book's conclusion, the author argues that considering the diversity of emotions animals seem to display, we should treat them with more consideration; if they are capable of loneliness, despair, grief, and the like, perhaps keeping them in captivity or experimenting on them at length is more than problematic. The variety of examples is commendable; there are primates, cetaceans, elephants, lions, tigers, and yes even bears. Emotions are easier to believe among the higher mammals, and some -- anger, happiness, sadness -- more likely than more esoteric feelings, like awe at a sunset. The authors use any account that brings to mind human emotions, but

When Elephants Weep is enjoyable more as a reflection on animal behavior and than a sterling scientific enterprise, but enjoyable all the same. ...more

I have a feeling I'm not going to finish this one. The writing is dense and not that accessible... but maybe if I skip to the interesting anecdotal stuff about animal emotions? It starts with a justification of the book, the idea that animals have emotions that are at least somewhat comparable to human emotions and that this deserves study. But that goes on for too long.

Eh. I read the first few pages and had to stop. There was nothing to back up what the author was saying. Most of what he said was that scientists don't want to ascribe emotions to animals because that would harm their research because they wouldn't be able to do painful tests on animals. At least that's what I got from it.

Another thing he brought up was the fact that no scientist wants anecdotal evidence in their research. No they don't. Scientists don't want anecdotal evidence because it is baEh. I read the first few pages and had to stop. There was nothing to back up what the author was saying. Most of what he said was that scientists don't want to ascribe emotions to animals because that would harm their research because they wouldn't be able to do painful tests on animals. At least that's what I got from it.

Another thing he brought up was the fact that no scientist wants anecdotal evidence in their research. No they don't. Scientists don't want anecdotal evidence because it is based on an individual's perception of what happened. It can't be tested and people are very inaccurate when retelling an event and the reasons surrounding why it happened.

I was hoping this book would delve into the lives of animals, maybe some research on how emotions were tested, and some interesting stories to think about, but after the first few pages I just had to stop reading.

This book is on the philosophical side of things. It basically asks the question if animals can feel certain emotions. It does this in a variety of ways through different people & the animals they have encountered or actually researched. There is alot to ponder when you think about certain species & how the react to things like prey, predators & humans. I mean when you have companion animals you like to think that they can communicate w/ you or each other. Do they have a sense of timThis book is on the philosophical side of things. It basically asks the question if animals can feel certain emotions. It does this in a variety of ways through different people & the animals they have encountered or actually researched. There is alot to ponder when you think about certain species & how the react to things like prey, predators & humans. I mean when you have companion animals you like to think that they can communicate w/ you or each other. Do they have a sense of time when you're gone? Do they seem happy or just hungry when you come home? There is alot in dealing w/ how mothers protect their young, but sometimes an entire group of certain species will aide in the help of others vs. just walking away. We have seen & heard the interspecies factor of being able to nurse when outside of its species. Certain ducks will follow who it thinks is its mother while others won't have anything to do w/ it. I guess sometimes you end up w/ more questions than answers which I am not always a fan of but this book makes you think about those things....more

I wanted to like this more than I did. It has some interesting tidbits and case studies, but the author is kind of all over the place and contradicts himself a lot. I believe animals have emotions, but I didn't feel like he made his case as compelling as he could have. But it's an interesting read.

All I have to say is this is a great book, I loved reading it and learned a lot about animals and elephants. I realize I am behind times with this book, as it was extremely popular years ago and I believe it had all sorts of coverage, on TV and from other animal experts like Jane Goddall (spelling) So I won't rehash a lot of other better reviews but just say I think this is another book everyone should read, and the world would be a better place if the ideas and thoughts and facts presented in tAll I have to say is this is a great book, I loved reading it and learned a lot about animals and elephants. I realize I am behind times with this book, as it was extremely popular years ago and I believe it had all sorts of coverage, on TV and from other animal experts like Jane Goddall (spelling) So I won't rehash a lot of other better reviews but just say I think this is another book everyone should read, and the world would be a better place if the ideas and thoughts and facts presented in this book were taken to heart and extended to all other creatures we are lucky to share our wonderous world with....more

Too vague and lacking in detail to be of much use. It reads like a whole lot of knew-this-already.

The author does open with a defense of the anecdotal, which I don't disagree with. I can deal with anecdotes. Anecdotes are fine.But everything here is so... cursory. It feels like a rapid-fire bullet-point list of things that happened at one time or another.

Maybe the core problem is that it's trying to cover animals in general, as opposed to an animal (or a select few species). There's simply too mToo vague and lacking in detail to be of much use. It reads like a whole lot of knew-this-already.

The author does open with a defense of the anecdotal, which I don't disagree with. I can deal with anecdotes. Anecdotes are fine.But everything here is so... cursory. It feels like a rapid-fire bullet-point list of things that happened at one time or another.

Maybe the core problem is that it's trying to cover animals in general, as opposed to an animal (or a select few species). There's simply too much ground to try and cover here in such a relatively slim volume.

It doesn't help that it seemed like the author was at times more interested in chastising humans than in talking about animal emotions.

On the plus side, there was made mention of other books (Running With The Fox, Lily Pond, etc.) which seem more focused and more up my alley. So at least this functioned as a jumping-off point for me....more

The book makes a strong case for advocating against the myopic views the scientific community, including researchers and behaviorists, take when discussing the behaviors and feelings of animals in both the wild and in captivity. Though the book presents the 'holes' in dealing with animals by humans it doesn't present many options for scientists to rectify their biases and shortcomings. However, if you care about animal welfare and understanding their plights and lives I would recommend the book.The book makes a strong case for advocating against the myopic views the scientific community, including researchers and behaviorists, take when discussing the behaviors and feelings of animals in both the wild and in captivity. Though the book presents the 'holes' in dealing with animals by humans it doesn't present many options for scientists to rectify their biases and shortcomings. However, if you care about animal welfare and understanding their plights and lives I would recommend the book.

The writers of this book ascribe emotions to animals, but not to anyone with a background in science. They admonish us to be kind to those unlike us and appreciate their unique gifts, but they do not accord that respect to members of their own kind. As a member of the scientific community,who has participated in animal research, I was highly offended by the preachy tone of this book. According to the authors,anyone who associates with animal research is unfeeling and invariably cruel. Most scienThe writers of this book ascribe emotions to animals, but not to anyone with a background in science. They admonish us to be kind to those unlike us and appreciate their unique gifts, but they do not accord that respect to members of their own kind. As a member of the scientific community,who has participated in animal research, I was highly offended by the preachy tone of this book. According to the authors,anyone who associates with animal research is unfeeling and invariably cruel. Most scientists that I have known have deep emotional pain regarding the experiments that are performed on animals. Many researchers form deep bonds with their subject animals and feel intense sadness and depression at what must be done. It is their desire to help humanity, and not their delight in the torture of animals, that leads them to their career path. In a perfect world, of course there would be no animal research, but how could we have the life expectancy and quality that we have today if not for research done in the past? Instead of proselytizing and angrily wagging fingers at those who practice animal research, why not honor those animals who have given their lives, and the people who must endure the intense emotions of working with them? Shame on you, Masson and McCarthy, for hypocritically criticizing those who have, directly or indirectly, allowed you to live the life you have, and to write those hurtful words....more

When Elephants Weep is full of moving anecdotes concerning animals and the possibility of them having emotions. It is a pleasant listen and usually not "over the top" in its preachiness. It was well read by narrator David Ackroyd. The authors make a compelling, if not scientifically rigorous argument for animal emotions.

Weaknesses:

The authors are continually preaching against scientists who do not believe that animals have emoRead by David AckroydDuration: 3 hours, 5 minutes (abridged)

Strengths:

When Elephants Weep is full of moving anecdotes concerning animals and the possibility of them having emotions. It is a pleasant listen and usually not "over the top" in its preachiness. It was well read by narrator David Ackroyd. The authors make a compelling, if not scientifically rigorous argument for animal emotions.

Weaknesses:

The authors are continually preaching against scientists who do not believe that animals have emotions and may even doubt that animals can even feel pain. However, they rarely point out the scientists or the studies that espouse this view. It felt like a straw man argument after a while. They also fail to cite any work that backs their claims besides convincing rhetoric.

In the end, it was a convincing, mostly entertaining book that was a lot more entertaining and pleasant than a PETA brochure, but without much more actual content than such a brochure.

Makes some good points, using lots of real-life examples, without the mistake of making animals out to be flower-children. Puts into words the annoying, infuriationg, ridiculous canon in the scientific realm that Animals Can't Have Emotions ("they've just evolved to act as if they do"?!) and it is anthropomorphic to say they do--comparing this to the not-so-long-ago scientific stand that animals (and, by the way, human infants!) can't feel pain as we do and it is anthropomorphic and stupid to saMakes some good points, using lots of real-life examples, without the mistake of making animals out to be flower-children. Puts into words the annoying, infuriationg, ridiculous canon in the scientific realm that Animals Can't Have Emotions ("they've just evolved to act as if they do"?!) and it is anthropomorphic to say they do--comparing this to the not-so-long-ago scientific stand that animals (and, by the way, human infants!) can't feel pain as we do and it is anthropomorphic and stupid to say they do (which is why, until not that long ago, babies often went through surgery awake with no pain meds, and to this day many young animals get their tails and ears cropped with no pain meds--cuz they can't feel pain, you silly sap). I remember dealing with this in university: if you mentioned an emotion (except maybe fear) in relation to any animal, you'd have professors more or less jumping at your throat.

No, we can't precisely measure emotion, so a quantitative scientific study of it is not possible (and this can understandably make hard-core experimental scientists uncomfortable); we may not feel emotions with the same nuances as different species, and it IS anthropomorphic to say Fluffy is upset that you forgot her birthday; similar emotions may be provoked or manifested differently in humans than in lions, pigs and chimps. But just because we can't graph it is no reason to say that emotions cannot exist in other species....more

Every pet owner will admit to committing anthropomorphism – ascribing human emotions to animals – on a daily basis; I know I sure do! We can see that our dog feels happy, that our cat feels playful, or that our turtle feels content; most people do not deny that non-human animals share some basic human emotions. However, in the scientific community, committing anthropomorphism is essentially looked upon as a sin.

In When Elephants Weep, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson challenges people – scientists, resEvery pet owner will admit to committing anthropomorphism – ascribing human emotions to animals – on a daily basis; I know I sure do! We can see that our dog feels happy, that our cat feels playful, or that our turtle feels content; most people do not deny that non-human animals share some basic human emotions. However, in the scientific community, committing anthropomorphism is essentially looked upon as a sin.

In When Elephants Weep, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson challenges people – scientists, researchers, and non-scientists alike – to come to terms with the fact that animals do seem to have emotions. Focusing on the basic human emotions people are most able to relate to, such as joy, love, anger, fear, shame, etc., this book provides compelling examples of non-human animals portraying and experiencing emotions much like people do. Some of these anecdotes that Masson provides as he argues that animals do have emotions and feelings include: the love shown in animals who mate for life, the fear evident in the animals’ eyes during dangerous encounters, and the sorrow they feel when one of their kind passes away.

Included with the examples are scholarly explanations from biologists, ethologists, and animal behaviorists of the emotions animals have been seen portraying. Masson’s theory that animals do experience emotions is backed up by some of the leading people whom have dedicated their lives to studying animals. While he gives detailed examples, and convinces the reader of his point, he is not biased in any way. He also provides anecdotes and opinions from acclaimed scientists and researchers whom do not believe animals can feel emotions, and through this, he allows the reader to keep an open mind.

When Elephants Weep is one of those books that you continue to think about long after you have read it. Granted, I am an animal lover so my opinions toward this book may be a little biased. However, this is not just a book for those with passions for animals; this is also a book for those simply curious about emotions and how those emotions affect every living thing, and also for those wishing to dive into a world known little by humans.

“Voltaire responded that, on the contrary, vivisection showed that the dog has the same organes de sentiment that a human has. "Answer me, you who believes that animals are only machines," he wrote. "Has nature arranged for this animal to have all the machinery of feelings only in order for it not to have any at all?”
—
1 likes